![](3D"7.Fernandez_archivos/image001.jpg")
![3D"Cuadro](3D"7.Fernandez_archivos/image002.gif")
Using Dialogic Talks=
in
EFL Primary Teacher Education: An Experience
<= o:p>
<= o:p>
Una Experiencia sobre Tertulias
Dialógicas en Magisterio en Educación Primaria con la
especialidad de Lengua Extranjera
Universidad de Alcalá
raquel.fernandez@uah.es
ABSTRACT
The
present study is part of a long-term research project based on the use of
Dialogic Talks as a collaborative instructional strategy in EFL Teacher
Education. The study was conducted with a group (n=3D20) of EFL Primary Tea=
cher
Education undergraduates with the aim of measuring the impact of the use of
this strategy in the classroom. Data gathering tools included a questionnai=
re,
students’ blogs, observation and the trans=
cripts
of sessions conducted in the classroom. Results show evidence of dialogic a=
nd
transactional learning, while also finding traits of the use of higher-order thinking skills and the development of st=
udents’
communicative competence in English.
Keywords: T=
eacher
Education, Dialogic Talks, EFL, techniques
RESUMEN
El presente estudio es parte de un proyecto de investigación de
larga duración basado en el uso de las tertulias dialógicas c=
omo
una estrategia de instrucción colaborativa en la formación de
profesorado de lengua extranjera (inglés). El estudio se llevó=
; a cabo
con un grupo (n=3D20) de estudiantes del Grado de Magisterio de Educaci&oac=
ute;n
Primaria (especialización en enseñanza del inglés como
lengua extranjera). El principal objetivo era medir el impacto del uso de e=
sta
estrategia en el aula. Las herramientas de recogida de datos incluyen un
cuestionario, los blogs de los estudiantes, observación y las
transcripciones de las sesiones que se realizaron en el aula. Los resultados
muestran evidencia del aprendizaje dialógico y transaccional, as&iac=
ute;
como del uso de las destrezas de pensamiento de rango superior y desarrollo=
de
las competencias comunicativas en inglés.
Palabras
clave: Formación de profesorado, tertulias dialógicas,
enseñanza del inglés como lengua extranjera, técnicas<=
/span>
=
1.
INTRODUCción
=
Two of the main gaps
Communicative Language Teaching did not fill were, first, to reach a high l=
evel
of authenticity of purpose when using the language (Coyle, Hood and Marsh,
2010) and, second, not having defined the role of literature in the classro=
om (Paran, 2000). With the advent of CLIL as a methodolog=
ical
approach, there is an opportunity not only to cover those areas but also to
connect them, as the need to promote good quality literacy practices in
bilingual classrooms has been outlined by research (see Meyer et al. 2015).=
=
=
Learning
contexts where real communication is achieved are generally based on genuine
interaction and, therefore, have ‘dialogue’ at the core of their
practices. Dialogue has a pivotal role not only in understanding but also in
generating knowledge. This is the main tenet of Flecha=
’s
‘Dialogic Learning’ (1997), which bolsters the creation of
collaborative spaces based on equalitarian dialogue and respectful interact=
ion.
Flecha considers Dialogic Learning central in t=
he
educational process, ultimately leading to transforming the community. =
=
Creating
the appropriate conditions for this to occur is, however, not an easy task,=
due
to at least two main reasons. First, that many students have experienced a
transmission-based, unidirectional and focus-on-=
form
education. They expect teachers to follow this methodology and feel uneasy =
when
they are asked to build knowledge with their classmates or think on their o=
wn.
Second, that dialogic talks are based on reading texts, commonly literature
books. The 2017 Spanish reading barometer indicates that the reading habit =
drastically
decreased in population aged more than 14. In the case of people aged from
25-34, almost 50% claim that they do not read because they do not like it, =
or
they are not interested in it. If the book is written in an additional
language, the motivation may probably decrease even more.=
=
As
some difficulties using literary texts have been foreseen, there is a need =
to
follow a methodological model which helps ease the way to introduce texts in
the classroom while also matching with the dialogic principles stated befor=
e.
After having revised None, Carter and Long (1991), the Cultural,
Language and Personal Growth models are disregarded, as they cover just
partially students’ needs and interests. Instead, the transactional m=
odel
put forward by L.M. Rosenblatt (1938) is chosen. The model elevates the
creation of meaning in the reading process. The focus is not on the text or=
the
reader, but on the interaction between those, and how this building of
knowledge is also a shared experience (Rosenblatt terms it ‘public
sphere’ of reading). Therefore, the reading transaction will also be =
favoured using dialogic talks in the classroom, with =
the
purpose of offering a positive and rewarding reading of literary works.=
=
The
present study is part of a long-term research project on the impact of dial=
ogic
talks in teacher education. The experience presented in this contribution w=
as
conducted with a group (n=3D20) of primary teacher undergraduates completing
their final year. They were specialising in Eng=
lish
as a Foreign Language and were enrolled in the bilingual group (completing =
more
than 50% of the degree ECTS in English and through CLIL). The experience was
carried out in the subject ‘Exploring Children’s Literature in
English’ and revolved around the first book of the series Mary Poppin=
s,
written by P.L. Travers in 1934, and consisted of a total of twelve dialogic
talks developed in October and November 2015. The sessions were recorded and
transcribed, and students completed a final questionnaire and a blog. In 20=
17,
students were contacted to complete a questionnaire about their experience =
with
Dialogic Talks and its impact on their personal and professional lives.=
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND
LITERATURE REVIEW=
2.1 In search of a new
model for literature in the bilingual classroom
Literature has played
different roles in the history of ELT, from being at the core of methodolog=
ies
such as the Grammar-Translation method to being almost completely forgotten
with the Direct or the Audiolingual Method. Its role in the last decades ha=
s not
yet been clearly defined. In 2000, Professor Amos Para=
n
asserted that “for the majority of EFL teachers, literature is still =
not
considered to be an essential element within the overall experience of lang=
uage
learning” (78). The use of literature may then be well researched on =
as
an opportunity to develop students’ language while also contributing =
to
their educational development. Following the Loop Input theory stated by
Woodward (1991), if this is done in Teacher Education contexts, it is expec=
ted
to start working on strategies and techniques undergraduates can later bring
into their own classes.
=
Even
if it seems clear that literature deserves another opportunity, it is also =
true
that the models defined by Carter and Long (1991) are not really covering
students’ needs and, what is more important, not making a full use of=
the
text which ultimately leads to a true interaction not only with the text, b=
ut
also with other readers. Fostering an adequate experience of the literary t=
ext
will encourage students to keep on reading and sharing, thinking critically and finding ways to understand and express =
their
ideas in the additional language.
=
In
this context, the Transactional Theory of reading, put forward by Rosenblat=
t in
her work Literature as an exploration (1938), and her subsequent
publications (see Rosenblatt, 1978 or 2005) is presented as a possible
alternative. Her proposal was based on the idea that the text and the reader
are modifying each other in a process she labelled as ‘the transactio=
n’.
In other words, when we read a text for the first time and when we do it for
the second time, neither the text nor we are the same. Using dialogic
terminology, the text is in a constant dialogue with the reader. In this se=
nse,
Rosenblatt highlighted the importance of the community of readers and
established text discussion and debate as the main methodological tool to r=
each
an appropriate transaction with the text:
=
An
atmosphere of informal, friendly exchange should be created. The student sh=
ould
feel free to reveal emotions and to make judgements. […] Teachers and
pupils should be relaxed enough to face what indeed happened as they
interpreted in the printed page. (Rosenblatt, 1995: 67) =
=
Another
critical element in Rosenblatt’s theory is her distinction between
efferent and aesthetic stances. In her view, most reading processes encoura=
ged
in the classroom are inviting students to experience texts from an efferent
point of view, that is, searching for and storing information. However, nat=
ive
speakers rarely experience literary texts this way, as this type of reading=
is
naturally encouraging aesthetic stances. In other words, the reader is invi=
ted
to experience and to feel through the text, with the purpose of engaging
him/her in the story. In Rosenblatt’s words, these stances are not
opposites, but rather the extremes of a continuum which needs to be balance=
d in
the classroom.
=
Even
if Rosenblatt established the central tenets to consider reading as a
meaning-making process where all readers can contribute with their experien=
ces
and knowledge to the community of learners, few practical guidelines were g=
iven
as to put her theory into practice in the classrooms. There is then a need =
to
gather strategies, techniques, resources and too=
ls to
put her theories into practice, as they may be beneficial to create a
methodology which works on literary texts from a perspective which is still
valid even if it was originated almost a century ago.
2.2 Dialogic Talks as an
instructional tool to foster Transactional Reading=
Dialogic talks are part=
of
the practices of a group of educational experts, led by Prof. Ramón =
Flecha (University of Barcelona), who are pursuing di=
alogic
learning. As such, these talks are considered a collaborative strategy, bas=
ed on
the creation of knowledge and meaning through dialogue(=
Flecha 1997). In the Dialogic Reading, the text becom=
es a
complex and enriching activity where collective dialogue-author and readers
produce better learning (Loza 2004: 67).=
=
=
The
mechanics of Dialogic Talks are quite simple. Students =
have
to read the text indicated by the teacher and they highlight one
sentence they want to share with others. They meet and share this sentence,
give their opinion in a respectful and tolerating classroom atmosphere, whe=
re
the teacher is another reader. Interpretations of the text are not imposed =
but
rather negotiated among all participants. This strategy is based on a dialo=
gic
view of learning, which supports the view that learning occurs through
interactions with others.
=
The
nature and procedure of these circles are in line with Rosenblatt’s
proposal of collaborative reading, both combining the private sphere (the
reader interacting with the text alone), and the public sphere (the reading
sharing reading experiences and having contact with shared meanings of the
text). Also, the text is used in an authentic context, fostering aesthetic
views, which balanced the natural use of efferent stances, and encouraging
critical thinking skills by analysing, discussing and associating the text with other spheres=
, such
as the sociocultural context, the author’s biography, etc.
=
Dialogic
Talks may then fit Rosenblatt’s theory, as it has been previously
highlighted in the literature of the topic (see Fernández, Garvín and González 2012). Therefore, i=
t is
assumed that transactional techniques, which favour
communication and interaction in the classroom, will also benefit the creat=
ion
of a communicative and authentic learning environment focused on meaning, a=
nd
not on form. The main purpose of this type of exchanges is to build up
knowledge individually and together using language as a communication tool.=
In
this sense, the use of literature in the bilingual classroom could be guide=
d by
these presumably favouring strategies.
2.3 Literature Review=
The use of Dialogic Tal=
ks
in teacher training has been subject to research in the past years. Alonso,=
Arandia and Loza (2008) a=
nd
Fernández, Garvín and Gonzá=
;lez
(2012) put dialogic into play to train in-service teachers. They focused on=
dialogic
reading seminars, as in the present study, and were interested in
participants’ learning and how these experiences were different from
those they had in their initial training. The main purpose was to demonstra=
te
how dialogic reading seminars may shape teachers’ beliefs and practic=
es
about reading texts in their classrooms.
=
Concerning
the benefits obtained with the use of this instructional strategy, Alonso et
al. (2008) highlighted how Dialogic Talks favour
participants’ equalitarian dialogue and reinforce the idea of how we =
are
transformational agents and responsible for the change in our own classroom=
s.
They also claim that teachers reading together may influence not only the
teaching process but our lives from a more general perspective. In this lin=
e,
Fernández et al. (2012) mention that teachers valued collective read=
ing
as motivating and rewarding, and compared it with their university training,
which was far more individualistic. Also, using original versions and prima=
ry
sources was considered interesting and valuable. An interesting finding was
that teachers value the need to have a sense of understanding and flexibili=
ty
in this type of lessons. Besides, they were willing to transfer this experi=
ence
to their classrooms.
=
Concerning
the use of Dialogic Talks in the Teacher Degrees, Choc=
arro
(2013) and Foncillas and L=
aorden
(2014) present studies to measure the impact of the use of this instruction=
al
technique in their classrooms. Chocarro (2013)
carried out an experience with students taken 2nd Year of Primary Teacher
Degree in the subject of Inclusive Education, where the equalitarian dialog=
ue
was fostered. In this study, undergraduates used the strategy to teach at
school, and reflected on it after the experience took place. Results show t=
hat students
highlighted equalitarian dialogue in the classroom, and an atmosphere of
respect, fostering students’ empathy, the interplay of emotions and
thoughts, the promotion of reading habit, encouraging participants’
communication, working on interculturality. The negative impact of this
practice was also present, as the lack of participation of shy students, wh=
ich
could be mitigated thanks to the teacher. Students were then aware of the
important role of the teacher to foster participation. The study does not
mention the book used; neither does it provide information about the data
gathering tool administered to the participant.
=
The
second study, conducted by Foncillas and Laorden (2014), was developed in the Social Education
Degree at the same university in which the present work was conducted.
Information was gathered using observation grids and recordings and using t=
hree
main elements as success indicators: the creation of a cooperative learning
environment, the development of a transformative, criti=
cal
and reflective capacity, and the impact on students’ relationship with
their affective environment (family and friends). Results show that student=
s recognised this instructional strategy as positive for
their learning and learned to work with others, respect their opinions and
build their knowledge together. Also, students developed communicative skil=
ls
in an environment based on egalitarian dialogue and respect.=
In light of the literature in the area
produced in the last years, it may be concluded that Dialogic Talks are
considered to have a positive impact on both Teacher Education undergraduat=
es
and in-service teachers. All studies highlight how Dialogic Talks favour respect, understanding and communication in the
classroom. Also, participants value the possibility to learn from and with
others, fostering a collaborative learning environment. Fernández et=
al.
(2012), who carried out their study with in-service teachers, suggest the n=
eed
to transfer these dialogic practices to university, claiming that they may =
help
fight the traditional model of teachers owning all knowledge and students
receiving it.
A
clear gap in the area is that the use of Dialogic Talks in CLIL environments
has been not found at the time of developing this study. If the use of
collaborative and communicative instructional techniques is to favour students’ language abilities and content
acquisition, it is necessary to measure their impact and reflect on how we =
can
make better use of those. Dialogic Talks have been proved to favour students’ L1 communicative skills and ma=
y also
contribute to their bilingual literacy development.
3. METHOD
3.1 Context and
participants
The context of the stud=
y is
a university college set in Alcalá de He=
nares,
Madrid. It is a private institution run by the religious congregation of the
Marist brothers, and is administratively attache=
d to
the Universidad de Alcalá. It has been
offering degrees in Teaching for more than 40 years now=
, and
has a student population of around 1000 people. The institution encourages
educational innovation using active methodologies in the classroom. One of =
the
methodologies favoured is the use of dialogic
learning in both the Teacher Education and Social Education Degrees, as pro=
ved
with a previous study using Dialogic Talks in two Social Education subjects
(see Foncillas and Laorden=
2014).
=
The
study was conducted in a class composed of 26 students. For
the purpose of the study, only those who attended the lessons regula=
rly
account for the information provided in the present work; therefore, 20 of =
them
finally participated in the study. They were 6 men and 14 women aged 21/22.=
The
experience was conducted in the subject “Exploring Children’s
Literature in English”, a compulsory subject for students studying to
become Primary Teachers with an EFL (English as a Foreign Language) specialisation. The students participating were also
following the bilingual itinerary at the University, which meant that all of
them hold a minimum B1 level (CEFR) at the beginning of their studies and h=
ad at
that time completed almost 50% of their studies in English.=
=
The
subject is delivered in three different groupings: large group (all the cla=
ss
together), middle group (half of the class, A or B); or seminars, where the
whole group is divided into four groups (A1, A2, B1 and B2). The experience=
was
developed during the seminars, having three meetings with groups of 5 stude=
nts
in November and December in 2015. The researcher was lecturing the subject =
and,
during the seminars where the Dialogic Talks were conducted, a language
assistant, an English native-speaker, was also present. He was also invited=
to
record his observations and commented on them with the lecturer after each
session.
=
The
subject is focused on the development of four key competences. Students sho=
uld
be able to know resources and strategies to use literature in the primary
classroom, they should also know how to develop literacy skills through
literature in the EFL/CLIL classroom, and be able to plan effective lessons
including texts, stories and literature. Apart f=
rom
that, they are expected to use English appropriately as the language of
communication and instruction in the classroom using a B2+ minimum level.=
=
The
implementation of Dialogic Talks is an activity included in the
lecturer’s didactic plan for the subject. The module it belongs to
revolves around a famous children’s book, in this case, the first boo=
k of
the series Mary Poppins, written by P.L. Travers in 1934. The main g=
oals
of this module are to make students engage in a meaningful reading experien=
ce
using Dialogic Talks, to raise students’ interest in how literary tex=
ts
may contribute to our learning and personal development, to make students
experience techniques and strategies to use literary texts in the classroom,
and to raise students critical thinking by comparing the book with other
related works, such as their adaptation to the screen as films, or
documentaries related to the creation of the text or the life of the author=
s.=
=
The
module was developed from October to December, parallel to modules 1 and 2 =
in
the subject, covering 16 classroom hours plus 20 hours of students’
autonomous work. The sessions were directed as follows:
- =
Session 1 (2 hours): Brainstorm information about =
Mary
Poppins and create a Padlet (a virtual wallchart with notes on the data
gathered in the session).
- =
Session 2 (homework+2 hours): Watch the movie Mary
Poppins at home. In class, we discuss the main events in the movie.=
- =
Session 3 (2 hours): Elicit knowledge about the autho=
r of
the book, P.L. Travers. Watch Saving Mr Banks in
class (this movie explained the adaptation of the book to the screen). =
- =
Session 4 (1 hour): Simulated dialogic talk with the
whole group and the first chapter of the book. Instructions to understand h=
ow
Dialogic Talks work.
- =
Sessions 5, 6 and 7 (3 hours, they were repeated in t=
he 4
seminar groups): Dialogic Talks.
- =
Session 8 (2 hours): In-role teacher pretending to be
P.L. Travers to conduct a press-conference with students. The information
delivered was taken from Lawson (2013). Reflection and discussion.
- =
Session 9 (2 hours): Students were asked to prepare an
activity to work on Mary Poppins’ story with Primary Students in Spai=
n. =
- =
Session 10 (2 hours): A group of 52 children from a l=
ocal
school participated in the workshop prepared by students in groups. =
=
- =
Session 11 (1 hour): Final questionnaire is administe=
red.=
3.2 Aims<=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;mso=
-font-kerning:
.5pt;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:HI;mso-bidi-language:HI'>=
The study attempted to
measure the impact of the use of a transactional-based tool: Dialogic Talks=
, as
an instructional strategy to enhance students’ learning (future EFL
Primary Teachers) in a bilingual context. More specifically, its application
will be measured in terms of how students respond to literature, and=
how
this response may shape their learning experiences and professional develop=
ment
as future teachers. As students are not taking any other similar subject in=
the
degree, it was not possible to measure this impact against a different
experience using another strategy. However, students’ perceptions of =
the
experience and their learning development are collected to fill this gap in=
the
best way possible.
3.3 Data Gathering Tool=
s=
Research tools used were
questionnaires, an observation log, students’ blo=
gs
and analysis of recorded sessions. It was our purpose to triangulate the da=
ta
gathering tools used to pursue research validity. Responses obtained after =
the
experience were complemented with information obtained in August 2017, a ye=
ar
and eight months after the experience had been conducted. At that time, the
lecturer contacted the group, sent a questionnaire about their view of Dial=
ogic
Talks and asked for participation to those who h=
ad
been teaching recently. Information from 5 participants, out of 20, was
obtained.
=
Concerning
questionnaires, these were delivered at the end of the experience with the
purpose of gathering data related to students’ perceptions and opinio=
ns
of having experienced dialogic literary circles in the classrooms. The first
question included in the questionnaire (see Appendix 1) was asking about th=
eir
gender. Although no significant differences were expected to be found among
sexes, this information was considered to prove this. Then, students were a=
sked
about whether they liked to read in Spanish and English. The next section
revolved around their participation in the Dialogic Talks, and students were
questioned about whether they had participated in the Dialogic Talks (other=
wise
the responses were not valid), and if they found the sessions interesting.
Later, questions concerning their perceptions of language and communicative
development were included. More specifically, they were asked if they had f=
elt
comfortable talking in English, and if they had realis=
ed
about their progress in their oral skills in English. The following questio=
ns
were more open, and asked students how the Dialogic Talks were helping them,
and what they had learnt with them (students were encouraged to provide with
information about language, content, attitudes, or other aspects). Last,
students were asked to give suggestions for improvement and to suggest the
lecturer if she should keep this strategy in the future.=
=
Throughout
the dialogic talk sessions, students were asked to keep their subject blogs.
These blogs are assessed in the subject, and are=
based
on students’ reflections on their lessons. Students have a blog sched=
ule
which indicates they should write their posts once every two weeks,
and respond to their classmates’ entries in the second week. T=
he
topics around which students need to write are not imposed by the teacher.
However, students need to refer to their experiences and learning in class =
in
the last lessons. Therefore, it was expected that there would be some entri=
es
dealing with the Dialogic Talks.
=
The
last data gathering tools were the observation logs and the transcriptions =
of
the recordings (the final sessions of the four groups were recorded with
students’ permission). The lecturer kept an observation diary she use=
d to
take notes throughout the lessons. Information gathered was primarily conce=
rned
with students’ creating of collaborative learning, contributing to ea=
ch
other’s knowledge and expertise and, secondly, to explore if students
were engaged in a transactional way with the text.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Information gathered fr=
om
the questionnaires indicates that it was the first time that students
experienced dialogic talks with literary works in English. They mention it =
is
the first time they had read a book and commented on it in groups. Also, th=
ey recognise the importance of developing communicative
competences in a stress-free environment, in which nobody is marking their =
oral
proficiency or judging their points of view. In this sense, most of them
mentioned the importance of being respectful and considerate of their
classmates’ opinions. Regarding the didactic potential of this
experience, some students indicated that this experience could well be empl=
oyed
in their future classes, with some adaptations. It was quite revealing to k=
now
that all of them without exception recommended the lecturer to keep this
activity in the future.
=
Concerning
observation and transcript analysis, information gathered shows that studen=
ts
were contributing to their learning in many ways:
- =
Linguistic issues. The students completed their
classmates’ sentences or contributed with a more appropriate word when
somebody else was stuck.
- =
Putting academic language into practice. Students sho=
w a
good command of language resources to express their opinion, agree and
disagree, illustrate with examples and back up their opinions. There are so=
me
instances in which they all want to speak, but the moderator acts appropria=
tely
and establishes turn-taking. In this last session, the lecturer was not
moderating and asked a student to play this role instead.=
- =
Building on previous comments. They generate new
knowledge by linking what others have said.
- =
Going back to the book. They were concerned about not
forgetting the book in their talks. There are many instances where students=
refer back to paragraphs in the book or keep their
classmates on track referring to lines or scenes in the book.=
- =
Cultural issues. They contribute with their views on
British and American society, comparing Travers’ background and the
context of the book with Disney’s creations. Spanish culture was not
mentioned in the talks, but they were aware of the differences when creatin=
g a
different product using the same story.
- =
Considering the timeline. Some students were aware of=
the
time the book was written and the movie was launched. They established
connections between society in the 30s, 60s, and now.
- =
Teaching, our profession. Many of the reflection capt=
ured
in the recordings are based on their ideas about how Mary Poppins educate children and their own role as teachers. This
comparison leads to insightful conversations were
students are shaping their own views on education.
=
Regarding
the level of participation, all students contributed to the group with the
sentences they had highlighted in the text. It was also gathered that the r=
ole
of the moderator is essential to keep students on track. It is relatively e=
asy
to depart from the book and start commenting on issues which are not direct=
ly
related to the story. The lecturer modelled the role of the moderator in the
first seminar, and students took this role later. One volunteer was appoint=
ed
to be the moderator for half of each session, to allow more students to be =
in
this role.
=
The
character of Mary Poppins in the text and in the movie was also subject to =
discussion.
One student commented on an instance in the book when Mary Poppins is
displaying kind behaviour towards the children =
and
said out loud: “I see kindness here” (Teresa S, seminar 2). Her
classmates agreed and were happy to find this, somewhat relieved. This, and
other instances in the seminars, may prove that in transactional reading,
readers answer “not to the text but to their evocation of the text, to
their own creation” (Galda 2013, p. 6).=
=
Participants
in this experience were also interested in how children’s literature =
has
evolved over time. More specifically, they mentioned that the original book
could be considered not appropriate for children now. They discussed about =
the
dangers of overprotecting kids. This comparison was also valued as rich and
fruitful, as the book “(..) makes us think about society, the way they
used to teach values, morals and manners. And maybe it would be very useful=
for
us to reflect on them now” (Laura C., seminar 2).
=
Concerning
blogs, students were given access as authors to the university blog site. E=
ach
student was requested to write six posts and comment on their peers’
posts throughout the module. In the time the Dialogic Talks were used, nine
students commented on this experience1. In most of the cases they
reflected on the use of ‘dialogic circles, but also described some of=
the
activities or commented on the situation depicted in the books. =
=
Most
commentaries on the Dialogic Talks experience referred to the opportunity t=
o exchange
ideas in a peaceful atmosphere, build on their classmates’ ideas and
perspectives, and consider this instructional strategy as to be adapted for
their Primary classrooms in the future. Some students referred to Dialogic
Talks as an opportunity to learn together. One example is the comment made =
by
Carmen S. (November): “Then we start sharing ideas and I have to
highlight that the conversation was fluent all the time. We were respecting
each other and adding something new to other thoughts. I really like this i=
dea
because we can implement it in our future classrooms and create a debate in=
a
relaxing atmosphere and with plenty of meaningful ideas”. It is worth
noting that students were considering that the creation of a relaxed atmosp=
here
was a crucial point to share and learn as a community. Also, they were
considering this technique as a plausible teaching tool in the future.=
=
After
one year and eight months, the lecturer contacted the group to know whether
they had been using literature and Dialogic Talks in their professional liv=
es.
Some former students had not had the opportunity to teach yet, but five val=
id
responses were obtained. These now Primary Teachers all have a positive vie=
w of
the experience, and they agreed on it having
influenced them in considering the potential literary texts may have in the
primary classrooms. However, just one of them (Inés F.) had the
opportunity to implement Dialogic Talks in their classes. She is working at=
an
English school and used the Dialogic Talks with some adaptations, as she ad=
ded
the use of visuals and realia to enhance students’ interaction and
understanding. This teacher considers that everything she has learned at
=
The
five former students, now teachers, agreed on having an interest in learning
more about how to make better use of books in their classrooms. They also
considered that Dialogic Talks are useful and can be implemented in their
teaching context. Also, they all agreed in finding ‘the Mary Poppi=
ns
experience’ crucial to understand how they can make the most of books=
in
the classrooms.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The present study aimed=
to
measure the impact of the use of a transactional-based tool, Dialogic Talks=
, in
the learning of a group of students taking the Primary Teacher Degree. The
study has demonstrated that the impact has been positive in terms of
students’ learning gains. This has also shown that future literacy
pedagogies should consider some key elements highlighted by students as hav=
ing
an influence on their learning.
=
First,
Dialogic Talks favour the creation of a
collaborative-cooperative environment in the classroom. Students value the
chance to share their reading experiences in a comfortable environment where
they did not feel judged or assessed. This has been also pointed out by
experts, such as Rosenblatt, who states that: “The primary criterion
should be not whether his reactions or his judgments measure up to critical
traditions but, rather, whether the ideas and reactions he expresses are
genuine” (1995: 67). It seems clear that these conditions were created
thanks to the Dialogic Talks. In addition, the role of the moderator was
essential to conduct students’ interventions. Leading discussion with=
out
imposing our own views is not an easy task; however, there are some guideli=
nes,
which are also indicated by research, which were effective, namely:
“Listen well, ask contingent questions, seize opportunities to clarif=
y or
enlarge concepts and ideas, and be challenging but supportive in interactio=
ns
with students” (Galda 2013).=
=
Second,
the importance of integrating different views and learn how to build our own
knowledge with the help of others. This was carefully modelled by the lectu=
rer
in the first sessions, when she acted as the moderator. It is very importan=
t to
let them know that all interventions are valid, but they need to be justifi=
ed
and clear. The teacher is just one more reader, but an informed one. =
=
Third,
the relevance of using literature in class with a meaning-making perspectiv=
e.
Rosenblatt insisted on the importance of making readers have a live-through
experience of the text, as to evocate their reading and construct it from t=
he
private (individual) and the public (group) sphere. In this case, students =
read
at home, but were also encouraged to bring one sentence to share with the r=
est.
This simple process made students focus on what words meant to them, and th=
ey
were re-constructing the text together. This view opposes current practices
focused on exploiting the text to learn grammar and vocabulary.=
=
Fourth,
the use of English for real communication purposes. Even though focus-on-fo=
rm
was not encouraged, some interventions in the seminars were concerned with
vocabulary and expressions. Students helped each other to make meaning out =
of
those words and to make the text their own (hence, unobtrusive scaffolding =
was
provided in this way). In their interventions, students were using appropri=
ate
language, and were aware of the importance of the expressions they were usi=
ng
(respectful and semiformal), but the message they were conveyed was of the
utmost importance.
=
Fifth,
students claimed they had learned much with this experience, as the Dialogic
Talks gave them the chance to know about different elements and ideas they
could not have come up with alone. This also led to putting higher order
thinking skills (HOTS) into play, as participants could not be content with
understanding the text, they needed to analyse,=
synthesise, compare or eva=
luate.=
=
All
in all, research shows that Dialogic Talks may be influential in changing
teacher trainees’ views on the use of literature in their classes. Al=
so,
they contribute to creating an appropriate atmosphere for students to inter=
act
with the text, their classmates and the lecturer.
Dialogic Talks foster listening skills, and the practice of turn-taking,
=
Concerning
future lines of research, this study has made an attemp=
t
to gather information about the impact of this experience on students and c=
ould
gather the views of five of them one year and a half after it was conducted=
. It
would be interesting to contact them in the future to know whether their vi=
ews
have changed if these former students have implemented dialogic-friendly
strategies in their classes once they became professionals. Also, it would =
be
interesting to provide students with more Dialogic Talks during their train=
ing,
so as to test whether their language skills and
critical thinking skills are fostered with their use. Last, it would be
interesting to classify students’ responses to the text, as to know
whether dialogic-friendly tools are encouraging any specific type or if dir=
ect
intervention from the teachers’ part is needed to work on some areas
which would be otherwise not dealt with.
NOTES=
1 Stud=
ents’
quotes are cited literally. No language correction has been made.
REFERENCES=
Alonso, M.J., Arandia, M.=
&
Loza, M. (2008). La tertulia como estrategia metodológica en la
formación continua: avanzando en las dinámicas dialógi=
cas.
Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del
Profesorado, 11 (1), pp.
71-77.
=
http://www.aufop.com/aufop/uploaded_files/articulos/1240860668.pdf
Carter, R. & Long, M. (1991). Teaching Literat=
ure.
Harlow: Longman.
Chocarro de Luis, E. (2013). Las tertulias
dialógicas, un recurso didáctico en la formación de
docentes. Historia y Comunicación Social, 13: 219-229.
=
https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/HICS/article/viewFile/44238/41800
Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010). C=
ontent
and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge Universi=
ty
Press.
Fernández González, S., Garvín
Fernández, R., & González Manzanero, V. (2012). Tertul=
ias
pedagógicas: con el libro en la mano. Revista Interuniversitaria de
Formación de Profesorado 45, pp. 113-118.
=
http://aufop.com/aufop/uploaded_files/articulos/1364431359.pdf
Flecha García, R. (1997). Compartiendo
palabras. El aprendizaje de las personas adultas a través del
diálogo. Barcelona: Paidós.
Foncillas Beamonte, M., & Laorden
Gutiérrez, C. (2014). Tertulias Dialógicas en Educaci&oacu=
te;n
Social: Transformando el Aprendizaje. International Journal of Sociology of Education,
3(3) , pp. 244-268.
Galda, L. (2013). Learning
from Children Reading Books: Transactional Theory and the Teaching of
Literature. Journal of Children’s Literature, 39(2): 5-13. Retrie=
ved
from http://www.childrensliteratureassembly.org/docs/39-2-Galda.pdf, access=
ed
27 July, 2018.
Lawson, V. (2001). Mary Poppins, she wrote. The li=
fe
of P.L.Travers. =
NY:
Simon and Schuster.
Loza, M. (2004). Tertulias Literarias. Cuadernos de
Pedagogía, 341: 66-69.
Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Shuck, K & Tin=
g,
T. (2015). A Pluriliteracies approach to conten=
t and
language integrated learning – mapping learner progressions in knowle=
dge
construction and meaning making. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28/1: 41=
-57.
Paran, A. (2000). Survey
Review: Recent Book son the Teaching of Literature, ELT Journal, 54/1, =
pp.
75-88.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1995). 1938. Literature as
Exploration. New York: D. Appleton-Century Co. 5th Edition.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The Reader, the Text, the
Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work. Carbondale: Southe=
rn
Illinois University Press.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (2005). Making meaning with text=
s:
selected essays. Portsmouth: Heinemann.